*******Dr. Steiner introduced something very important almost a century ago,
which some here may have already been exposed to and which would be an
interesting topic to discuss. He gave a series of lectures called Human and
Cosmic Thought (older title, Microcosmic and Macrocosmic Thought). In it he
says that there is no one philosophical point of view which is objectively
right for everyone but rather that different personality types lean towards
one or another depending on their temperament. He identifies 12 and connects
them with the signs of the zodiac (or the constellations, I'm not clear
about which yet).
He begins with, as his primary polarity of 2 opposite points of view,
what can be called 'materialism' and its opposite which he names 'spiritism'
or it could be translated 'spiritualism', not meaning doing stuff with
mediums but rather the belief that only the inner world of our (spiritual)
selves is real. This is what underlies every You-create-your-own-reality
philosophy. Personalities who incline to this philosophy don't relate to the
material world and so want to interpret it as merely a form of the spiritual
--- which of course in a sense it is. So it's not that their philosophy is
"wrong" but just one-sided. After all, all that may be true but what good
does that do when you need to deal with anything material?
I remember many years ago I gave a lecture and afterwards a lady and her
man friend who were very interested in it gave me a ride to my hotel. The
man was really eloquent in speaking about the spirit and contact with the
divine within, and we were soaring into rhapsodies of discourse as the car
stopped at a gas station for gas. Then the lady said she couldn't get the
gas cap off and could one of us help. Well, we stood there for 10 minutes
stupidly pawing at the locked gas cap trying to get it off so she could get
gas and speculating Well, maybe it works this way and maybe that way. I had
to laugh at our being in love with our own voices in our puffed-up
conversation when we weren't worth a darn in the world of material things.
That's the problem with the one-sidedness of Spiritism or Spiritualism:
useless in actually dealing with the material, egotism often drives these
adherents into denying it exists or imagining they can deal with it by mere
wishes alone. (As a paralegal I've done bankruptcies for many long-time
adherents of this philosophy and gotten them out of tax troubles--- and of
course they are utterly helpless with anything technical."So heavenly minded
you're no earthly good", as Johnny Cash sang of some of his born-again
On the opposite extreme, the materialist---the mechanic, technician,
scientist---- is great with unlocking gas caps, but they believe everything
'spiritual' (your inner consciousness, thoughts and feelings) is just
produced by the material. It's all just electricity in the brain. People,
animals, plants, all simply ARE their bodies and ONLY their bodies. This
one-sidedness is what makes materialism so destructive. It's right in its
own sphere, as "spiritism" is in its, but neither account for all reality.
Stretching them to do so is what distorts them.
>From: "Mathew Morrell" <tma4cbt@...>
>Subject: [steiner] C & E = Reality?
>Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2006 03:09:21 -0000
>JZ Knight bases her philosophy upon a simple, but rather powerful,
>axiom. This axiom states that consciousness and energy creates the
>nature of reality, or C&E=R. Wherever you place your consciousness,
>energy follows and the product is reality.
>If you think negative thoughts you'll create a negative reality, if
>you think of a rock you'll create a rock, if you imagine world peace
>there'll be world peace. There's a cleanness and simplicity to the
>C&E axiom that makes it seem invulnerable to criticism. After all,
>who could deny that our thoughts and attitudes don't in some way
>influence our reality? Thoughts are the mechanical movements of
>intelligent perception and, indeed, produce circuit-like connections
>with reality on the quantum level.
>But let's not be deceived, here. Thoughts also produce "mechanical
>connections" with realities that exist solely in ones' own head and
>have absolutely no reality outside the mind. The realities existing
>in ones' own mind are simply thoughts. They're eidiolon that have
>their existence in the astral realm of the imagination. The
>shortcoming of JZs philosophy is that is makes no distinction
>between these astral connections with false realities (illusions)
>and connections made with objective reality (truth).
>Although this might seem like a minor flaw in JZs philosophy, it
>isn't. JZ is an extreme relativist who believes that there is no
>reality outside the self and that reality is merely an illusion
>produced by the mind. In fact, in her philosophy, the self is
>itself an illusion. (Her brand of relativism makes Einstein's
>relativism seem downright Newtonian in comparison.) This is why you
>so often hear JZ chanting "Burn the image!" The image is our
>existence in reality, which is an illusion according to her
>subjectivist doctrine: something that has no spiritual value and
>impedes mystical oneness with the universe.
>But surely there is a difference between the world of dreams and the
>world that indicates a known and definable totality called reality.
>Surely, the thoughts in our head are different in some way from the
>reality that all of us live in: reality being "the ground of all
>things", as Eckhardt called it; a universal field that responds to
>the movement of intelligent perception, capable of revealing itself
>on ever-deeper levels of beingness. It isn't until we achieve a
>slightly more concise definition of reality that the "JZ axiom"
>begins to weaken---cracks under strain of philosophical analysis.
>It doesn't mean that JZs axiom is wrong, necessarily. C&E does
>equal reality. But reality and fantasy are two entirely different
>spheres and any kind of distinguishment goes un-noted. They're
>constructed from different dynamics and involve different forces
>that shape the way reality is experienced as opposed to the way a
>fantasy is produced and experienced. To lump them together under
>the same axiom is ignorance of the wealth of understanding that
>exists at our fingertips as universal-objective truth.